Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Pavisers- use, equipment, and existence. Reply to topic
This is a Spotlight Topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next 
Author Message
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin


myArmoury Admin

PostPosted: Fri 15 Sep, 2017 7:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This topic has been promoted into a Spotlight Topic.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Sat 16 Sep, 2017 9:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Great stuff Pedro. I never really thought of these infantrymen with large oval shields as pavisiers before, but I suppose they are, or at the very least they seem to perform the same function.

I have to beg to differ on the issue of whether Scottish axe-men were using one or two handed axes. At least one of the legislations mention that axes can be substituted for brogit staves or short spears, and as these two weapons are poleaems I have to think that so were the axes. All the legislations which mention axe-men between 1430 and 1491, list their minimum equipment as; helmet, jack, axe, sword, and either a buckler or a targe. If you already have a sword as a sidearm, why would you want a single handed axe as your primary weapon? Wouldn't a two handed axe make more sense in this scenario? Also the adoration of the magi painting shows men armed with glaives and medium sized shields. A glaive is a two handed weapon so I'm really not sure how it was used in conjunction with a shield. The only thing that I can think of is that the shield was left hanging from a strap around the neck leaving both arms free to wield the glaive. Perhaps this is also how Scottish axe-men used their shields? The downside of using a shield like this is that is could potentially limit some of the pollaxe techniques which could otherwise be used.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pedro Paulo Gaião




Location: Sioux City, IA
Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 422

PostPosted: Tue 03 Oct, 2017 11:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Before I talk about the adoration of the magi painting, I'll say one quick thing about the use of the some words related to targe. In German speaking countries the word tartsche (obviously a borrowing from targe) is a synonym for schild (shield), though usually it is used to describe rectangular shields. For example a German term for pavise is setztartsche (a shield that you set up), and a hand pavise is a handtarsche (no explanation needed here). And of course in Italy there was a rectangular shaped buckler called a targa, which looks like a smaller version of a hand praise. This could possibly strengthen the idea that 15th century Scottish targes were also rectangular.


Makes sense.

Quote:
Anyway getting back to the shields from the adoration of the magi painting. Let's list the things that we know for certain about the targes from the 15th century legislations and see if the shields in the painting match.

1. It was a new or unusual design of shield that many would have been unfamiliar with, thus necessitating example being sent out to each shire.
2. It was primarily intended to defend against English arrows.
3. It was cheap; no more than the value of a hide.
4. It was made from either leather or from wood.
5. It had two handles on the back.

It isn't definite but William Patten may have been talking about these same targes when he said; "They were new boards' ends cut off, being about a foot in breadth and half a yard in length : having on the inside, handles made very cunningly of two cords".

So do the shields depicted in the painting of the adoration of the Magi adhere to these criteria? Due to the angle from which they are painted it's hard to make out their exact size and shape. We also don't know what they are made from or what sort of grip they were used with. They seem to be about the right size if we accept Patten's description, but on the other hand this means that they are fairly small and of limited use for protecting against English arrows. Neither Patten nor the legislations mention a metal boss, and this would make them more than the value of a hide. Overall I'm not sure what to make of these shields.


Thing is: there examples of pavises made out of several wooden boards, each next to the other, instead of a single piece of wood? With the exemption of the mantlets (also called "pavises"), I don't know if we have such examples (but I'm likely to agree the targes in Patten's description were indeed mantlets, due to how the english used their cannons to destroy them). All pavises I know were also fully made of wood and painted.

Regarding the picture, I think this disposition of glaive+shield has to do with the ceremonial occasion here, rather than those actually being used for fighting.

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Great stuff Pedro. I never really thought of these infantrymen with large oval shields as pavisiers before, but I suppose they are, or at the very least they seem to perform the same function.

I have to beg to differ on the issue of whether Scottish axe-men were using one or two handed axes. At least one of the legislations mention that axes can be substituted for brogit staves or short spears, and as these two weapons are poleaems I have to think that so were the axes. All the legislations which mention axe-men between 1430 and 1491, list their minimum equipment as; helmet, jack, axe, sword, and either a buckler or a targe. If you already have a sword as a sidearm, why would you want a single handed axe as your primary weapon? Wouldn't a two handed axe make more sense in this scenario? Also the adoration of the magi painting shows men armed with glaives and medium sized shields. A glaive is a two handed weapon so I'm really not sure how it was used in conjunction with a shield. The only thing that I can think of is that the shield was left hanging from a strap around the neck leaving both arms free to wield the glaive. Perhaps this is also how Scottish axe-men used their shields? The downside of using a shield like this is that is could potentially limit some of the pollaxe techniques which could otherwise be used.


Reasonable, but the axe can deliver more energy than a sword (Machiavelli says the pikeman's arming sword is pretty useless against an armored opponent). Considering axes as not so redundant for one who already has a sword, the idea of axe+targe main combination was perhaps intended to be more effective (and axes could sometimes break or split of its head) than sword+targe. My main problem with the suggestion of those axes actually being two-handed is because it would be such a waste of money to simply throw off a pavise when you had to fight at close range.

“Burn old wood, read old books, drink old wines, have old friends.”
Alfonso X, King of Castile (1221-84)
View user's profile Send private message
J. Douglas




PostPosted: Tue 03 Oct, 2017 2:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A few points I'd like to suggest. (Not that I have much experience but anyhow...)

1. Would it be possible that they strapped the shields to their arms and used the a isle two handed? (You know, like some Greeks did in aincent times?)
2. Perhaps I'm making an immeasurably wild stretch here, but could the axes refer to something a lot larger? Like short halberds or the like?
3. Their Scottish. My ancestors were Scottish and I've been there quite a bit. I love the place. I'm pretty sure they could use at least 5 two handed axes at once with their forefingers alone. (Assuming they had enough of Ye Olden IRN BRU to fight with, of course) Big Grin

~JD (James)
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Tue 03 Oct, 2017 3:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James. It is entirely possible that the axes mentioned in these legislations referred to halberds or Lochaber axes or any number of axe-like polearm. My money however is on it meaning Pollaxe. Personally i think that a shield strapped to your arm would get in the way while trying to wield a polearm, but I could be wrong. For what its worth the famous painting of the Battle of Culloden does depict one of the charging Highlanders as using a Lochaber axe in two hands while having a targe strapped to his arm.

Pedro. If they wanted a single handed weapon to better deal with armour then a mace or warhammer would have been a better choice than an axe IMO. I don't think that a single handed axe would be any better than a sword for dealing with an armoured opponent.

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
My main problem with the suggestion of those axes actually being two-handed is because it would be such a waste of money to simply throw off a pavise when you had to fight at close range.


Well the legislation does specify that these "targes" be no more than the value of a hide, so perhaps they were thought of as cheap and disposable.

Another possibility is that I'm completely wrong about these targes actually being pavises, and they were more like the shields depicted in the adoration of the magi painting. Perhaps the shields were used to protect the un-armoured faces of the axe-men as they approached the enemy, but then just before contact was made, they slung their shields across their backs to free up both hands to wield their axes.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pedro Paulo Gaião




Location: Sioux City, IA
Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 422

PostPosted: Thu 05 Oct, 2017 9:32 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

J. Douglas wrote:
A few points I'd like to suggest. (Not that I have much experience but anyhow...)

1. Would it be possible that they strapped the shields to their arms and used the a isle two handed? (You know, like some Greeks did in aincent times?)
2. Perhaps I'm making an immeasurably wild stretch here, but could the axes refer to something a lot larger? Like short halberds or the like?
3. Their Scottish. My ancestors were Scottish and I've been there quite a bit. I love the place. I'm pretty sure they could use at least 5 two handed axes at once with their forefingers alone. (Assuming they had enough of Ye Olden IRN BRU to fight with, of course) Big Grin


1 - Given the descriptions of some anglo-scottish battles involving shield-armed pikemen, it's possible. Arm-strapped shield didn't ended with the Macedonians. The kite shield can have a leather strapping that allows you to fight with a spear and even a dane axe (some people even believe they were used that way at Hastings). See this pike-like formation of byzantine soldiers (byzantines probably invented the kite shield themselves):
http://www.levantia.com.au/spears.html

The burgundian pikemen also had their shield in their left arm. Also, I would like to mention that those burgundian shields are mentioned as "targes" in the translations I found, by their profile is oval rather than rectangular.

"The pikeman must wear a sleeved jacket reinforced with plates, and a breastplate. His right arm should be protected by more plate armour, and his left arm by a targe (a small round shield). Since he would need both hands free to wield his weapon, the targe may have been fastened to his arm."

"The pikeman must wear a sleeved jacket reinforced with plates , and a breastplate. His right arm should be protected by more plate armour, and his left army by a targe (a small round shield). Since he would need both hands free to wield his weapon the targe may have been fastened to his arm. "

"The pikemen shall wear a shirt of mail with sleeves and breast, on the right arm on the mail bands of iron with small guards, on the left arm they'll only have the sleeve of the haubergeon, so as to wear more easily the light target they'll recieve when they'll need it."


2- They could, actually. Scots were using two handed axes as just as single-handed ones. But the styles of those shield are rather "traditional" rather than of imported style (like pollaxes), usually "irish axes" or lochamber axes. I'm not saying it's impossible they had pollaxes, it's likely they had it too! But they definitely wouldn't be as popular as the local fashion axes.
-------------------

Stephen Curtin wrote:
James. It is entirely possible that the axes mentioned in these legislations referred to halberds or Lochaber axes or any number of axe-like polearm. My money however is on it meaning Pollaxe. Personally i think that a shield strapped to your arm would get in the way while trying to wield a polearm, but I could be wrong. For what its worth the famous painting of the Battle of Culloden does depict one of the charging Highlanders as using a Lochaber axe in two hands while having a targe strapped to his arm.

Pedro. If they wanted a single handed weapon to better deal with armour then a mace or warhammer would have been a better choice than an axe IMO. I don't think that a single handed axe would be any better than a sword for dealing with an armoured opponent.


Maces were fairly of higher prices, and the case of scots is particular because the axe itself is recognized as a national weapon, in the same way as the morningstar and the flail was recognized as the traditional bohemian weapon (in the Book of Emperor Maximilian he's represented carrying a morningstar as a symbolism of his sovereignship over bohemian lands; other weapons were also representative of other principalities as well).

The mention of the axe as a traditional scottish weapon isn't limited to the english or even the anglophile Jean Froissart. The latter even saying the scottish were "masters" in some arts of axe-wielding: like picking an axe at your back and handling in fancy motion (he mentions his statement when describes a knight doing such feature in battle); it's likely that King Robert de Bruce also did this feature when he slew an English champion with his axe. I believe axe-throwing pratice was fairly popular too.

In any case, regarding efficiency against armoured opponents, the axe it objectively superior to the sword. Not only single-handed axes are mentioned with some efficiency against armoured opponents (again, Robert de Brus slain a fully armoured knight with a single stroke of his axe), but in other parts of Europe cavalrymen had axes as a popular secondary weapon against other armoured soldiers: the "horseman's axe" being the most representative of all. There is a source from another anglo-scottish battle that also says the scots were causing considerable trouble to the English due to their axes strokes (I believe I already posted it in the previous pages).

The axe can achieve superiority against the sword because it's movements rely in its momentum (weight of the head x distance of the handle == good momentum), which is basically why hammers and pollaxes were also effective against armor. There were actually swords with better momentum, like falchions, but I believe they can't do much against armor and surely aren't as good as axes at delivering energy (but are objectively better at parrying and more versatile too).

Now, regarding on pollaxes, with the exemption of the traditional styles, a continental/english style of pollaxe wasn't accessible to a soldier who isn't a man-at-arms or of the knightly classes. Using the shield in the left arm to use a weapon double-handed it's possible, but all the examples of it are always with shields that isn't too large: the exception being to the kite shield, but even this isn't especially large in the horizontal lines (where it covers your arm). The conclusions we can draw for this are the following:

Thesis 1: The axes mentioned were actually two-handed. The shield was mainly intended to protect against the arrows and was discarted when the axemen had to fight with his two-handed weapon. The fact the legislations orders cheaper shields strengthen that thesis. If the shields were smaller ones, then there would be no apparent reason to discard them, but assuming this would makes us re-think the effectiveness and use of such shields

Thesis 2: The axes were one handed and the main weapon of the axemen. Such selection was basically because the axe was more effective against armor than the sword.

I believe the first one is the most likely, due to all which was exposed in this discussion. Whether the shield was a pavise or of smaller size, perhaps we might never know unless he [/url]

“Burn old wood, read old books, drink old wines, have old friends.”
Alfonso X, King of Castile (1221-84)
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Thu 05 Oct, 2017 3:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
Also, I would like to mention that those burgundian shields are mentioned as "targes" in the translations I found, by their profile is oval rather than rectangular.


As far as I'm aware nobody actually know what form these Burgundian targes took. The targes in the image you linked to are probably a speculative reconstruction.

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
Maces were fairly of higher prices


Do you evidence for this? Judging by the materials I'd say; maces, warhammers, and axes of similar size should all cost about the same.

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
Now, regarding on pollaxes, with the exemption of the traditional styles, a continental/english style of pollaxe wasn't accessible to a soldier who isn't a man-at-arms or of the knightly classes.


That's a fair point. The pollaxe was, and is, usually thought of as a gentleman's weapon, and the axe-men mentioned in Scottish legislation came from the country's yeomanry, so perhaps a Lochaber axe or another similar weapon fits better.

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
Using the shield in the left arm to use a weapon double-handed it's possible, but all the examples of it are always with shields that isn't too large: the exception being to the kite shield, but even this isn't especially large in the horizontal lines (where it covers your arm).


When a kite shield is used in conjunction with a two handed weapon it isn't strapped to the arm, but rather held up by means of a strap around the neck.

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
Whether the shield was a pavise or of smaller size, perhaps we might never know


Unfortunately this is most likely the case.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Iagoba Ferreira





Joined: 15 Sep 2008

Posts: 192

PostPosted: Sat 07 Oct, 2017 5:35 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Spanish sources from the late XVth century and early XVIth century tend to show the pavisemen armed with darts (probably fletched javelins with "dove tail" points).

In Lope García de Salazar's "Bienandanzas e fortunas", XVth century combats between half a dozen and several dozen supporters of the low nobility families in northern Castille shows a tendency to crossbow combat from distance (like a Wild West shootout), and if the fighters got closer, pavisemen would throw darts. In some cases, hand to hand combat followed with spears, very rarely with swords. Sometimes, armoured cavalry would be present and also threw darts, to continue with spears or swords.

Of course, while attacking or defending houses, ships and towers, a very frequent kind of combat, pavises came handy too.

As bonus, some ceremonial pavises, early 1609 painting showing Ferdinand II fulfilling his feudal duties in 1476.



 Attachment: 885.12 KB
Fernando_El_Catolico_Guernica.png


 Attachment: 212.86 KB
juradefuerosvizcanoseng4.png


 Attachment: 215.35 KB
juradefuerosvizcanoseng3.png

View user's profile Send private message
Axel Schudak




Location: Norden, Germany
Joined: 31 Oct 2017

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Tue 31 Oct, 2017 1:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I know I am late on this Pavise-party, but here is a depiction of their usage by Hussite mercenaries during the Landhut succession wars in 1504 at the battle of Schönfeld:


Link (inline seems not to work for me):
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landshuter_Erbfolgekrieg#/media/File:Schlacht_Schoenberg.jpg


Wikipedia on the battle (sorry, only available on German):
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlacht_von_Wenzenbach
and war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Succession_of_Landshut[/img]

The usage was as a mobile wall.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pedro Paulo Gaião




Location: Sioux City, IA
Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 422

PostPosted: Wed 01 Nov, 2017 2:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
Also, I would like to mention that those burgundian shields are mentioned as "targes" in the translations I found, by their profile is oval rather than rectangular.


As far as I'm aware nobody actually know what form these Burgundian targes took. The targes in the image you linked to are probably a speculative reconstruction.


I would argue otherwise, but when I checked Heath's illustration that shows a burgundian pikemen with a buckler-like targe, he admits that there isn't any contemporary artistic source showing the pikemen carrying shields (according to his speculations, probably because they weren't popular), so his construction is enterily speculative too.

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
Maces were fairly of higher prices


Do you evidence for this? Judging by the materials I'd say; maces, warhammers, and axes of similar size should all cost about the same.


I had a link showing the prices of stuff in Medieval England, but I lost it. In any case, materials isn't necessarily decisive regarding the costs of weapons and armor, since the labor and technique involved would count more. Maces, at least those I'm aware, were all flanged; the morningstars, however, were peasant's weapon in Bohemia; according to George Gush in his "Renaissance Armies", to swiss patterns, the Lucerne Hammer was a levy's weapon due to its simplicity.

Even one-handed axes could be separated into lower-classes' axes and nobility axes. I recently found a 1520's painting century showing a German noblemen with a Horseman's axe (first file below).

Complexity would increase the price, since the arms-smith would take a whole lot of time and tecninique to do a more elaborate weapon than a simple one. The result is that poorer soldiers couldn't afford weapons that were too complex or were designed for a special social class. I never saw, neither in illustrations nor in written evidence, poorer soldiers using maces, at least not what the Portuguese would call as "Maça-de-armas" (or mace-of-arms).

However, it should be noticed that we have evidence for the English longbowmen having, besides the arming swords and longsword; hatchets, mauls and battle-axes "hanging at their waists"; according to the Sire de St. Remy, ocular testimony at Agincourt. Another source also adds "becs-de-faucon" to the list of weapons.
Source: Heath, Ian. Armies of Middle Ages vol. 1. pp. 97.

Ergo sum: even if we don't have records about their prices, the fact they weren't required as part of basic soldier equipment and they were not shown in chronicles or artistic evidence support the thesis they weren't acessible to lower class' soldiers.

----------------

Iagoba Ferreira wrote:
In Lope García de Salazar's "Bienandanzas e fortunas", XVth century combats between half a dozen and several dozen supporters of the low nobility families in northern Castille shows a tendency to crossbow combat from distance (like a Wild West shootout), and if the fighters got closer, pavisemen would throw darts. In some cases, hand to hand combat followed with spears, very rarely with swords. Sometimes, armoured cavalry would be present and also threw darts, to continue with spears or swords.


This is perhaps an unrelated question but, some of the crossbowmen in Castile or Aragon actually carried personal pavises to use them as cover while shooting? I just know of the Portuguese, so I'm not inclined to do generalizations before evidence supports it. Besteiros do Conto had their own shields (If I remember correctly, all of them had one), but the Castillian Ordinance 1385 (file below) doesn't oblige the arrayed soldier to afford either armor neither pavise. Perhaps they did that because they often employed pavisiers to protect the crossbowmen, but that's just my opinion.


Iagoba Ferreira wrote:
As bonus, some ceremonial pavises, early 1609 painting showing Ferdinand II fulfilling his feudal duties in 1476.


The people represented carrying the pavises were the noblemen themselves? Was that some sort of local traditional cerimony?



 Attachment: 70.4 KB
Castile's Ordinance of 1385 [ Download ]

 Attachment: 129.99 KB
Horseman's Axe [ Download ]

“Burn old wood, read old books, drink old wines, have old friends.”
Alfonso X, King of Castile (1221-84)
View user's profile Send private message
Pedro Paulo Gaião




Location: Sioux City, IA
Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 422

PostPosted: Wed 01 Nov, 2017 3:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Axel Schudak wrote:
I know I am late on this Pavise-party, but here is a depiction of their usage by Hussite mercenaries during the Landhut succession wars in 1504 at the battle of Schönfeld:


Link (inline seems not to work for me):
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landshuter_Erbfolgekrieg#/media/File:Schlacht_Schoenberg.jpg


Wikipedia on the battle (sorry, only available on German):
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlacht_von_Wenzenbach
and war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Succession_of_Landshut[/img]

The usage was as a mobile wall.


This is the very first time I see a description of post-Hussistism formation of Bohemians. I find interesting they put the shields as cover to their static formation. The polearms, although it resembles of the swedish "sword-staff" is perhaps an Ahlspiess.

“Burn old wood, read old books, drink old wines, have old friends.”
Alfonso X, King of Castile (1221-84)
View user's profile Send private message
Iagoba Ferreira





Joined: 15 Sep 2008

Posts: 192

PostPosted: Fri 03 Nov, 2017 6:57 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:


Iagoba Ferreira wrote:
In Lope García de Salazar's "Bienandanzas e fortunas", XVth century combats between half a dozen and several dozen supporters of the low nobility families in northern Castille shows a tendency to crossbow combat from distance (like a Wild West shootout), and if the fighters got closer, pavisemen would throw darts. In some cases, hand to hand combat followed with spears, very rarely with swords. Sometimes, armoured cavalry would be present and also threw darts, to continue with spears or swords.


This is perhaps an unrelated question but, some of the crossbowmen in Castile or Aragon actually carried personal pavises to use them as cover while shooting? I just know of the Portuguese, so I'm not inclined to do generalizations before evidence supports it. Besteiros do Conto had their own shields (If I remember correctly, all of them had one), but the Castillian Ordinance 1385 (file below) doesn't oblige the arrayed soldier to afford either armor neither pavise. Perhaps they did that because they often employed pavisiers to protect the crossbowmen, but that's just my opinion.


I don't know of any source mentioning Castilian crosbowmen with pavises. Seems that they depended from spearmen-pavisiers to do so.

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:

Iagoba Ferreira wrote:
As bonus, some ceremonial pavises, early 1609 painting showing Ferdinand II fulfilling his feudal duties in 1476.


The people represented carrying the pavises were the noblemen themselves? Was that some sort of local traditional cerimony?


Seems that it was a way to show their heraldic arms. Or maybe it was made up by the painter to show the heraldry. But in the early XVIth century there are mentions to decorative heraldic pavises, and in the North, there was still custom to go well clothed and armed (crossbows and swords for sure) to the Sunday mass, and leave the weapons in the porch. A show of status, so a big painted pavise would fit for the purpose too.
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Thu 16 Nov, 2017 3:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
Stephen Curtin wrote:
So the French, Italians, and Spanish sometimes positioned pavisiers in front of formations of crossbowmen to defend against enemy fire. This is also how I imagine the Scottish used their "aixmen".


We have evidence of it being used thus by the Spaniards and the Italians, but I have not yet come to find anything explicit of the French doing so in pitched battles. That is to say, it is extremely probable that actually did too, for we have illustrations of that in sieges.


The French "pavisiers" at Nogent-sur-Seine appear to have been close-combat troops (maybe spearmen), not crossbowmen. Of course the French did have crossbowmen who carried and used pavises too. But we don't seem to have any evidence for the French using a system whereby a pavise-less crossbowman was protected by a separate spear-carrying pavisier in the Italian manner. Note that the pavisiers in both of the supposedly French illustrations you posted below carried either spears or swords but not crossbows:

Quote:
I find this image representing french pavisiers protecting themselves from english longbowmen. Notice they were placed in both flanks of their formation:
https://ru.pinterest.com/pin/733172014307302091/

Another one, showing pavisiers in the front ranks:
https://ru.pinterest.com/pin/485544403548504626/
View user's profile Send private message
Pedro Paulo Gaião




Location: Sioux City, IA
Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 422

PostPosted: Thu 09 Jan, 2020 12:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It does seen plausible that French and Castilian Pavisiers were not intended to be crossbowmen. But the reason why I revived the topic relates to some mss. I found that give a point to Stephen:



Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Battle_of_Auray_2.jpg

There are lots of interesting equipment here, but the fact the French Pavisiers are armed with poleaxes (even though with one hand) is odd. The handles are shorter, of course, but I think that's artistic license instead of an actual one-handed variation (an axe specialist could give their two cents on that).

Some cavalrymen is also using this poilaxes. And, regardless of the subject of one or two handed, this figure from "The Arrival of the Pilgrims at Cologne", from the Legends of St. Ursula, a shielded warrior with a long-handled warhammer:



Source: http://www.academic-capital.net/2013/05/the-a...ne-by.html

“Burn old wood, read old books, drink old wines, have old friends.”
Alfonso X, King of Castile (1221-84)
View user's profile Send private message
Radovan Geist




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Likes: 5 pages

Posts: 399

PostPosted: Fri 10 Jan, 2020 12:24 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ten years ago (wow, already so long!) guys from Kosice reenactment groups experimented with an efficiency of different formations using pavises. The whole article could be found here: http://www.viacassa.eu/taktika-uhorskeho-pesi...u-v-praxi/ It´s in Slovak, but using Google translator would work, methinks.
What was interesting, their experiments were informed by sources from the 2nd half of the 15th century. Some of them are quoted directly in the article. Let me summarise those that are related directly to the use of pavises on the battlefields (2nd half of 15th century, Hungary), maybe it brings some interesting information:

"Armored soldiers and soldiers with shields (large shields/pavises) demand double pay for their armor and shields because for carrying their armor and shield they need the assistance of pages and servants that need to be sustained... We use armored soldiers as a wall; they would not move from their place (on the battlefield) even if they´d all die there..."
(A letter of the Hungarian king Mathias Corvinus to the bishop of Jeger)

"When you should array 100 foot soldiers, line six with pavises in the front line, mixed with shoters from handguns or crosbows. Then, line three soldiers with pavises and three soldiers with glaives/poleaxes behind them, then seven soldiers with pavises. Bedind them, again soldiers with glaives/poleaxes, and then the flag, well protected by pavises from cavalry attacks..."
(15th century Czech general Vaclav Vlcek from Cenov)

"The whole light infantry and shooters from handguns are surrounded by armoured soldiers and shiled-bearers in a way similar to fortress, because pavises lined closely into a circle are just like fortress walls protecting infantry and the others. Those, protected behind a wall of pavises and dikes, then gush out to attack in a right time."
(A letter of the Hungarian king Mathias Corvinus to the bishop of Jeger)

"More lightly armored infantrymen attack from behind them (pavise wall) and when they´re tired or sense a more serious danger, the retire behind the armored soldiers (with shields). When they recover their strengths and courage, they wait for a right moment to attack againg."
(A letter of the Hungarian king Mathias Corvinus to the bishop of Jeger)
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Fri 10 Jan, 2020 4:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Pedro. I'm glad to see that this topic still interests you. I have seen these images before but unfortunately I really don't know what to think of them. Thanks for thinking to share them here though.
Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Henry O.





Joined: 18 Jun 2016

Posts: 189

PostPosted: Fri 12 Jun, 2020 1:38 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have an example from a different period which might be relevant and also I have some more thoughts to add about the possibility of combining large shields with long pikes.

For the first point, there's the Byzantine army of the 11th century in which according to the Taktika and Praecepta militaria the standard "hoplites" were supposed to be armed with shields almost 5 feet tall and long spears between 19-23 feet long. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6h7rtv/in_many_medieval_strategy_games_the_army_is/diwgg4e/

As for the second point, here are some thoughts in no particular order

-We might be overestimating how much equipment is too encumbering based on the soldier's percieved role. The byzantine example in particular seems to represent a peak "heavy infantry as the defensive arm" mindset, with the spearmen serving as primarily pretty much a mobile wall or fortress while the actual attacking is done by either cavalry or light skirmishers, who would then retreat back behind the heavy infantry for protection. This is how the writings of vegetius mostly view heavy infantry and also seems to bear a lot of similarities to how pikemen and dedicated heavy infantry tended to be used by various nations aside from the Swiss. The aggressive swiss pike columns were not the norm. And if a foot soldier is expecting to spend most of the battle just standing in one place, then he can spend much of that time with his long pike or large shield resting on the ground. with a two-handed weapon he probably wouldn't have his shield strapped to his arm at all and instead possibly proped up on the ground, or else slung from the neck and shoulder like the macedonians supposedly did. "and with a slight wrying of the body, and lifting up the right shoulder, whirled their target, hanging at their back, upon the left shoulder, that stood next the enemy in the charge."



-

-As a caveat, while you can sometimes find sources that make a clear distinction, i tend to be skeptical about terminology remaining 100% consistant between different authors, regions and periods. So it might be that we're seeing is a transition between an era where to protect a pike formation against arrows you could create shields which were large, but still fairly lightweight and maniable, and an era in the 15th century where the increasing power of crossbows and firearms created a need to more often use to much thicker, heavier shields which had to be propped up on the ground as a stationary mantlet, or else carried by dedicated shield troops stationed in front to provide cover for those armed with crossbows or two-handed weapons. In the Heavy Arbalest thread a while back Jean posted this video which gives an example of just how elaborate the construction of some late medieval pavises could get: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2Rl9DLUfao

however while the idea of trying to protect soldiers from missiles with shields was eventually largely abandoned in the face of heavy gunpowder artillery, there are examples where it seems to have continued to be a recommended tactic at times against large numbers of archers in particular. From the English translation of Jacapo di Porcia's late15th century Preceptes of Warre:

Quote:
What is to be done when thyne enemyes be moost parte archers.

When our enemyes be for the mooste part archers, then set aganyst them, men fenced with tergates, whych sort of soul∣dyours be sometyme in the hostes of the East partie. And by this pollicie thyne army shalbe out of theyr daunger.


There's also the case of late 16th century ireland. Where, as the english longbow was increasingly being seen as obsolete on the continent, there started to be a pattern of english archers being redeployed to the wars in ireland with the idea being that they should still be able to do good work against the very poorly equipped irish rebels. However, according to Barnabe Rich, the irish were still able respond by creating large wicker shields to protect themselves:

Quote:
. . . [the irish] invented targets made of small wickers, like basket liddes, which weighing not above two pownd weight, would cover them from the toppe to the toe, and sometimes with their mantles hanging loose about their armes, which was the cause that our captains of that countrey, long sithence have converted all their bows to calivers, and from that time have so continued.


-

-Lastly, it's probably worth keeping in mind that in the late middle ages, for all but the poorest light infantry you would probably rarely expect to see a "marius's mules" situation where each soldier would actually be expected carry all his own arms and supplies while on campaign. Instead, even many of the infantry would likely had to have at least one servant, a draft animal, or at least shared a cart on which they toss most of their weapons and armor while on a long march. So in cases where soldiers were supposed to have more weapons than one could reasonably be expected to fight with at the same time it might be that it's purpose was just to help ensure that the army had a sufficient quantity of each one, and then before a given engagement the soldier would get to pick and choose whether he wanted to fight with his two-handed polearm, his pavise, or something else and then leave the rest behind with the baggage depending on whether it was a skirmish, a siege, or an open field battle.
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Sat 13 Jun, 2020 5:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Henry. First off thanks for sharing that Barnabe Rich quote I haven't seen that one before. As for soldiers having different arms for different tasks that's certainly a possibility. There is even a possibile precedent for this practice in Scotland as some evidence suggests the better armed Highland Scots used both bows and arrows, and two handed swords, with attendants to carry whichever weapon they weren't current using.

Getting back to the targets Patten describes Scots as using at Pinkie Cleugh. A detail which we might be overlooking is that these were "new boards ends cut off". I wonder, does he mean that these targets were made recently, as in perhaps made after the Scots had made camp? If so then perhaps this is more evidence that these were some form of field fortification rather than individual shields. Also looking again at the online dictionary of the Scots language under targe, one usage has a type of tortoise like shelter used in sieges referred to as broad targes (braid targis).

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Henry O.





Joined: 18 Jun 2016

Posts: 189

PostPosted: Sun 14 Jun, 2020 2:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Yeah, the description of the scottish shields given by Patten is definitely a bit odd. He does seem to consider them something of an oddity, mentioning them in the same paragraph as finding large paper rattles filled with stones on the end of long sticks which were supposed to scare the english horses.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A09164.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Quote:
Nye this place of onset, whear the Scottes at their rū∣nynge awey had let fall their weapons (as I sayd) Thear found we, bysyde their com∣mon maner of armour, certeyn nice instrumentes for war (as we thought.) And they wear, nue boordes endes cut of, being about a foot in breadth and half a yarde in leangth: ha∣uyng on the insyde, handels made very cunnyngly of .ii. cordes endes: These a Gods name wear their targettes a∣gain the shot of our small ar∣tillerie, for they wear not able to hold out a canon. And with these, found we great rattels swellyng bygger then the bel∣ly of a pottell pot, coouered with old parchement or doo∣ble papers, small stones put in them to make noys, and set vpon the ende of a staff of more then twoo els long: and this was their fyne deuyse to fray our horses when our horsmen shoulde cum at them: Howbeeit bycaus the ryders wear no babyes, nor their hor∣ses no colts: they coold, neyther duddle the tone nor fray the toother, so that this pollecye was as witles as their powr forceles.


It could be that these were devices that only some of the scots were carrying, not necessarily the pikemen, and that despite their small size they were supposed to somehow slot together into a solid wall.

Or, it might be worth noting that Patten does not state that they were there to protect against english arrows specifically, but instead says they were worn against "our small artillerie" but "not able to hold out a cannon." Perhaps what's unique about these shields was that they were made of a fairly thick and heavy construction (possibly also helping explain their small size) and being carried by some troops in front to help provide a bit of extra cover against, not just arrows, but also smaller bullets and canister shot at a distance. Similar to how William Garrard and some other military authors sometimes would recommend putting in front of a column of pikemen or mixed in with skirmishers certain men armed with "targets of proof" to help provide a bit of extra cover against small shot. Although if this is the case then combined with the description of the two handles it makes me think its unlikely these were being carried by actual pikemen, since the left arm already has to bear most the weight of the pike when leveled, and so adding the weight of a shield to that same arm would get pretty tiring.

A few pages earlier, he does mention the pikemen carrying shields but uses the word "buckler" instead of "target" like he does in the above passage. Again this could just be an inconsistency on the part of the writer, and he's definitely not being very precise in the first place, but the implication might be that most of the pikemen were just carrying bucklers or other shields that weren't too interesting, and that only some of the scots were carrying these devises made of "new boards."

Quote:
They cum to the felde wel fur∣nished all with Iak and skull, dagger, buckler, and swoordes all notably brode and thin, of excedinge good temper & vni∣uersally so made to slyce, that as I neuer sawe none so good, so think I it harde to deuyse ye better: hereto euery mā hys py∣ke, & a great kercher wrapped twyse or thrise about his neck, not for colde but for cuttīg.


Quote:
Standing at defēce, they thrust shoulders lykewise so nie together ye fore¦rākes wel nie to kneling stoop lowe before for their fellowes behynde, holdynge their pykes in both handes, and thearwith in their left their bucklers, the one ende of the pyke agaynste their right foot▪ thother agaīst the enemie brest hye, their follo¦wers crossing theyr pyke poin∣tes with theim forewarde, and thus each with other so nye as place & space wil suffer, thrugh the hole warde so thick, that as easly shall a bare fynger perce thrugh the skyn of an angrie hedgehog, as ony encoūter the frunt of their pykes.


https://i.imgur.com/nMMfLsZ.jpg

picture unrelated

And again, unlles you're reading something like a fencing manual where the distinction really matters, i think a lot of english authors during this period tend to play it sort of fast and loose with the different words for shield. For instance when talking about the ancient Roman scutum I'm pretty sure I've seen even in the same work writers bounce back and fourth between calling it a shield, a buckler, or a target. So i don't think the word buckler here necessarily refers exclusively to the small, punch-grip weapon you would use in sword-and-buckler fencing.

-

Regarding having assistants to carry weapons, there definitely seems to be quite a lot of precedence for this in the 16th century at least. The tercios de flandes blog has some neat illustrations of the Spanish "shield page" which many spanish officers would have to help carry around their heavy proofed rodela for them. And while I'm not entirely sure of the degree to which this would be done in combat, it would apparently be a fairly common sight to see an officer walking around camp with several assistants following close behind, maybe one carrying his halberd, one carrying his pike, one carrying his greatsword, etc. This may have been increasingly becoming the case for many "regular" soldiers as well as the growing status of the footsoldier in the 16th century was making more gentlemen and better off members of society eager to serve as pikemen. There would even be rules for footmen who brought their own horse to war with them governing when, if ever they would actually be allowed to ride and when they would have to march on foot with the rest of their comrades.



Although my thinking is that even in earlier centuries the "heavy infantry" still wasn't necessarily the poorest of the poor, and that even if they couldn't afford a proper horse they might still be able to have at least a mule or donkey, or pool together with some fellow soldiers and use a wagon to help with all their stuff. And even if they couldn't really afford "servants" then maybe, you know, they could convince the wife and kids to come help out.

View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Sun 14 Jun, 2020 4:46 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Henry O. wrote:
It could be that these were devices that only some of the scots were carrying, not necessarily the pikemen, and that despite their small size they were supposed to somehow slot together into a solid wall..... Perhaps what's unique about these shields was that they were made of a fairly thick and heavy construction (possibly also helping explain their small size) and being carried by some troops in front to help provide a bit of extra cover against, not just arrows, but also smaller bullets and canister shot at a distance.


This is basically what I'm thinking at the moment.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Pavisers- use, equipment, and existence.
Page 3 of 4 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum